Re: [PATCH v5 04/26] rust: alloc: implement `Allocator` for `Kmalloc`

Danilo Krummrich
2024-08-14T13:48:36Z

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 03:44:56PM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 3:36 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 09:51:34AM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 8:24 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Implement `Allocator` for `Kmalloc`, the kernel's default allocator,
> > > > typically used for objects smaller than page size.
> > > >
> > > > All memory allocations made with `Kmalloc` end up in `krealloc()`.
> > > >
> > > > It serves as allocator for the subsequently introduced types `KBox` and
> > > > `KVec`.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > rust/helpers.c | 3 +-
> > > > rust/kernel/alloc.rs | 2 +-
> > > > rust/kernel/alloc/allocator.rs | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/rust/helpers.c b/rust/helpers.c
> > > > index 92d3c03ae1bd..9f7275493365 100644
> > > > --- a/rust/helpers.c
> > > > +++ b/rust/helpers.c
> > > > @@ -193,8 +193,7 @@ void rust_helper_init_work_with_key(struct work_struct *work, work_func_t func,
> > > > }
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rust_helper_init_work_with_key);
> > > >
> > > > -void * __must_check __realloc_size(2)
> > > > -rust_helper_krealloc(const void *objp, size_t new_size, gfp_t flags)
> > > > +void *rust_helper_krealloc(const void *objp, size_t new_size, gfp_t flags)
> > > > {
> > > > return krealloc(objp, new_size, flags);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Why are the various annotations on this helper being removed?
> >
> > rust_helper_krealloc() is only called from Rust, hence neither __must_check nor
> > __realloc_size() should have any effect.
> >
> > I also do not apply them in subsequent commits for the vrealloc() and
> > kvrealloc() helpers for this reason and removed them here for consistency.
> >
> > > This deserves an explanation in the commit message.
> >
> > I can also add a separate commit for that.
>
> I think your change would be more obviously correct if you keep them.

As in generally, or just for this patch?

Generally, I don't think we should indicate compiler checks that actually are
never done.

For this patch, yes, it's probably better to separate it.

>
> Alice
>